Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Walls of America

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Walls of America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an advertisement for Superior Walls of America and is not otherwise notable. Should be considered WP:Spam and deleted. I placed a speedy deletion template on the page, but it was quickly deleted by another editor. CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to cite reputable third-party sources. Associated with This Old House and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Dragon224 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References seem ample. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content reads just like the company's website advertising and links from the site. Definitely not an encyclopedic article, should be considered WP:SPAM in its current state.--CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the information is from quality third-party sources. I encourage you to follow links provided in references. I was careful to source critical information. rburk41 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that the article should be rewritten to be less likely to be flagged under WP:ARTSPAM, as said by rburk41, it has enough third party verifiable references that means that it means baseline notability requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eastmain, those references really aren't that impressive. "Quality third-party sources," rburk? Ich don't think so. www.concreteproducts.com is not a quality third-party, and I have removed the "reference" to an "article" of theirs that was meant to strengthen the lead. I also moved an article from a local VA newspaper what was supposed to bolster the claim that the product is environmentally friendly. I also think that it passes muster, but only barely--and I would like to urge editors to look more closely at sources and at what they are supposed to verify. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Concrete Products is a monthly magazine that has been in print for over 10 years. It may not be too exciting for most people, but in the concrete industry, it doesn't get much more credible or reputable. --rburk41 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had to fix this above comment as it was disrupting the AfD listings for today. I have no opinion on this article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no indication whatsoever of an independent editorial board on their website; a quick look at the article I removed (and the one still cited in the WP article) reveals that there is no author, and the closest thing to an author is the Superior company website. That something is a reliable source requires some evidence, and that this particular article is not printed more or less directly from the supplier of the information (2/3 of the article was a quote) requires even more evidence. BTW, you have added two new references to the article which will pass muster, in my opinion, so kudos to you--but, unfortunately, you cannot claim that "environmentally friendly" and "Approved Products - National Green Building Standard" are the same thing. Approved according to one set of guidelines does not mean environmentally friendly, and you will have to adjust the wording. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Drmies, I appreciate your insight into this matter and help. Your caution toward Concrete Products in this case is warranted. However, it should also be noted that the information I have found in Concrete Products has been supported through my research in other more well-known publications like Popular Science, Builder, Fine Homebuilding, The Boston Globe, and web articles from BobVila.com and This Old House site. This verification and support adds credibility, in my opinion. --rburk41 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, thanks--I don't deserve much praise, I think, since you are (already) doing exactly what you need to be doing to "save" "your" article. I've seen people at AfD's get all bent out of shape as if this is a war-zone, but in this case, I think the subject might well be notable and finding proper references, as you are doing, is what convinces editors (and many of them, see above, already were impressed). Keep up the good work, and I have good faith that in this case it will not be in vain. Wikipedia is one of the few places in the world where, I believe, hard and honest work is usually rewarded. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ConstEdit - article should be rewritten. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.